GOPAL CHARAN SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gopal Charan Satpathy faced trial in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 97 of 1991 for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 14.01.1991 at about 7.30 a.m. in Room No.4-C of Bikram Lodging, Thoriasahi, Cuttack, he committed rape on 'PD' (hereafter 'the victim'), wife of Manguli Charan Dash (P.W.6) of Madhu Sasan, P.S. Patkura, Dist-Kendrapara.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by the victim (P.W.7) on 14.01.1991 before the Officer in charge, Mangalabag police station is that she was suffering from some stomach ailment and came to Cuttack to check her health at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and she left the village with her husband and the petitioner on 13.01.1991 at about 3.00 p.m. and arrived at Cuttack in the evening on that day. All of them stayed in Room No.4-C of Bikram Lodging, Thoriasahi, Cuttack. In the morning on 14.01.1991 at about 7.30 a.m., the petitioner sent the husband of the victim to bring some Gudakhu and tooth twig from the nearby market. After the husband of the victim left the room, the petitioner locked the door of the room from inside and asked the victim to allow him to have sexual intercourse with her to which the victim opposed. The petitioner forcibly lied down the victim on the cot and then committed sexual intercourse with her. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that since the victim was ailing, she was not having sufficient strength to prevent the petitioner from committing the sexual intercourse. At the time of commission of offence, the petitioner was wearing a lungi. After committing the rape, the petitioner left the room in question wearing the lungi. The victim disclosed about the incident before her husband when he arrived in the room after returning from market. Fifteen to twenty minutes thereafter, the petitioner again came to that room but out of fear neither the victim nor her husband challenged anything to him. With a pretext of purchasing a necklace, the victim and her husband left the lodging and came outside leaving their articles inside the room. They met a man on the road before whom the husband of the victim narrated about the incident and asked for his suggestion who advised them to report the matter at Mangalabag Police Station and accordingly, both the victim and her husband came to Mangalabag Police Station in a rickshaw.

(3.) After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned Trial Court charged the petitioner under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and since the petitioner refuted the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the Sessions Trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt.